[Rupert]

As for the assumption that you're going to get better images with your FF, well maybe.

I'm not going to do much here but make some enemies, and I need more friends than enemies, but at that risk, I do have to ask......How many have gone through the K3 Photo Thread and said to themselves..."I have surpassed the abilities and skills I see here and need a FF to move forward?"
I just see a ton of fantastic quality shots there, and I find it impossible to believe we have so many that are "deprived" only by the lack of a FF camera? If anyone can say they have "surpassed those abilities and skills", please let us hear from you! I would be honored just to be in your presence....or maybe reach for my waist high rubber wading boots?

Regards!

[UncleVanya]

I find this fascinating. The biggest gripe I have about not having FF Pentax Cameras is having to listen to these arguments.

[Rupert]

I find this fascinating. The biggest gripe I have about not having FF Pentax Cameras is having to listen to these arguments.

Yes, but we don't "have to listen", it's just that it makes for such great entertainment!

Regards!

[Shanti]

Then don't freeze the wings, there are many good BIF images have some movement in the animals wings.



Personally I think this is a bad idea. Sure you can buy a D810 or 750 - but you would still run into issues with DOF which is shallower on FX format, so you will have to stop down even more to obtain the same DOF you were getting on DX format.

IMO going full frame will hinder you more than it will help if you are only going to buy slow lenses. If you really want to do BIF with birds perfectly frozen in mid air like taxidermied specimens in a museum you have to do it properly, there isn't room for half measures. Get a fast autofocus 400mm f/2.8, get a full frame DSLR with clean High ISO and high FPS and class leading AF - like the d4s - because really that is the best way to do it. If you can't afford this then do the best you can with what you have got, technique can accomplish things that technology alone can not.

yes I know the proper way is fast lenses & AF,have tried a 400 2.8 for a short time,which was fantastic..but way over my budget now..
as I can't get close enough sometimes,I need to crop alot,and with 16MP K5II noise becomes a problem over 1600 ISO,but maybe its the NR in PS/Lightroom that could be better? If I could get cleaner High ISO with APSC,then that would be fine,as I know more DOF is needed alot.

[Shanti]

You realize that with your 150-600 on full frame, you'll be at 600 ƒ6.3. AN equivalent in Pentax would be the K-3 with a DA*300 and a 1.4 TC, which gets you 420mm ™ ƒ5.6. FF equivalent that's 630 @ƒ5.6. So you're going to be slower and shorter, if only marginally for wildlife. As for the assumption that you're going to get better images with your FF, well maybe.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/12-post-your-photos/270829-misc-post-your...s-version.html

Just to add to that a comparison between my K-5 and K-3




You can add quite a bit of detail to your K-5 images with a K-3. But the the D810 is pretty amazing for dynamic range....

IN any case, you seem to be sold, so good luck with your new system. Let us know what it eventually costs and how it works out.

Hi Norm I know my DA*300+1.4 is the same as 150-600 in FL on FF,but being able to crop is what I think the advantage is,and better high ISO's--so stopping down to 8 on the Tamron/Sigma maybe is needed to get the same as 6.3 on Pentax combo,but the higher ISO would allow for faster shutter speeds.
If I could get the 150-600 for Pentax that would be the best or the new 100-400 4.0?? that may come next year..or the year after..
for shots like this one below(OOC jpeg) ISO 1600,about a 40% crop the DA300* is fine

[Digitalis]

Hi Norm I know my DA*300+1.4 is the same as 150-600 in FL on FF,but being able to crop is what I think the advantage is,and better high ISO's--so stopping down to 8 on the Tamron/Sigma maybe is needed to get the same as 6.3 on Pentax combo,but the higher ISO would allow for faster shutter speeds.

If you did that the noise would be the same, perhaps worse than what you are currently getting on APS-C.


Pentax K10D - Sigma 100-300mm f/4 @ f/4 1/180th wireless AF540FGZ+ Honl 1/4cto filter used

[normhead]

^ What he said.... if you use 600 on an FF and 400 on APS-c, you have exactly the same ability to crop on both systems as long as they are 24 Mp. The 6000x4000 pixels for the D750, 6000x400 pixels for the K-3, The number of pixels is the same on both....so if lenses are equivalent, you need a much more expensive lens on FF to get the same field of view. IN low light you may have a bit of an advantage with a D750. If DoF is is important, then you are going to get more DoF using APS-c for a given ƒ-stop.

Hey, if you want to go for a full frame, don't let me talk you out of it. But I have the reach you plan to achieve with a D750 and 150-600 with my $500 SMC A-400. There may be other features that make the D750 attractive. I don't know I've never met a D750 shooter up here in wildlife land. But it's a new camera so, maybe soon.

For me it's really simple, there are no 600mm lenses that I'm capable of carrying on hikes, because of weight, and when you go to a bigger lens, you need heavier tripod. I don't know about the 150-600 it seems like a goo lens. But I seriously doubt it's DA* 300 + TC quality, or DA 560 quality. I'm sure if I'm wrong someone will correct me.

Maybe the 150-600 is better, and it could be marginally better on an FF. But my experience with Tamron and Sigma long zooms is that they are pretty bad in the long end. For me, send them back to the store and get my money back bad, but, who knows maybe Tarmon hit a home run with this lens and things will work out for you.

Check out the goose, further down this page,
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/55946-300mm-plus-lens-club...ml#post3062629

---

Last edited by normhead; 12-07-2014 at 08:22 AM.

[Rupert]

But my experience with Tamron and Sigma long zooms is that they are pretty bad in the long end.

Norm, I can't agree with that, not for my needs and qualifications. My Bigma 50-500 is as good at the long end as anywhere else, and produces images that are plenty acceptable for my needs. Again, I am looking at the scope of "typical users" that do not require a National Geo result to satisfy their desires. Same argument I use for going FF.....what do you gain for your cash, and will you really be a better shooter or just a shooter with better equipment?

Most of my Bigma shots are at 500mm and wide open, and I have hundreds of them. For an inexpensive lens that has zero PF and is well built and long time durable, it brings wildlife shooting to many that might otherwise not afford it.

K5 1/100 ISO 320 F6.7@500mm


Old K10D- 1/60 ISO 400 F8 @ 500mm


Now I don't claim these are the quality of some of the high powered and high priced lenses, but they are very typical of the shots you get from the Bigma. If I had shot them with a FF and a $3K+ lens would they be better? Most likely, and most likely they would still not get in Nat Geo, but would still be appreciated by "Old Granny" who would never know the difference! After all, most of my shots are for the Old Granny crowd, not the pixel peeping aristocrats!

Regards!

[normhead]

If what you're saying is consumer zooms are made for consumer's needs, I'm right with you there, Rupert.

NO sense in arguing with the obvious.

But it doesn't answer the obvious either, when you get a Tamron 150-600 are you getting a longer 55-300, or are you getting DA* quality? I don't know, but I see the difference, between Tamron long zooms, Sigma long zooms and DA* lenses.

[Rupert]

I don't know, but I see the difference, between Tamron long zooms, Sigma long zooms and DA* lenses.

I won't argue that with you Norm, you post some of the finest wildlife shots posted here on PF......dogs too, as well as landscapes. But my question is, not do you see the difference...but does "Old Granny" see the difference? Properly shot and processed, printed with equal quality, my experience has been...she doesn't. We are talking about two different worlds. More than once I have had a "common observer" note that it was a shame I didn't get the background in focus.....when I was so proud of the lovely bokeh! People see different things, and they are not always what we see or strive to obtain.

Here a shot from my little studio has a ton of imperfections and I can see them. My Mom...all she sees is three of her great grandkids and thought it was perfect. That's what I'm talking about......Not necessarily need vs greed, but using equipment that is suitable for your own personal use and expectations. You have yours (and I am glad you do!) and I have mine.


Regards!

[normhead]

I shoot with all my lenses, even my old Sigma 70-300 , which close in gives me great images, that I prefer in some ways, the softer feathers look more natural to me, where you see the difference is in landscapes focussed on infinity. Most of the consumer zooms look like mud on those. If you have no need for detail in distance images, then you'll be happy with a consumer zoom. If you're going to shoot at a distance and then crop, you need the best glass. If you're not going to do that then save your money. You'll never see the difference.

[Digitalis]

If you're going to shoot at a distance and then crop, you need the best glass. If you're not going to do that then save your money. You'll never see the difference.

Which is why I enjoy my sigma 100-300mm f/4 APO so much, it does just about everything well...it doesn't like close focusing though.


Pentax K5IIs - Sigma 100-300mm f/4 APO EX DG

[Rupert]

What I need most often is range...the more the better. The Bigma gives me a nice range and even more would be appreciated. Some loss of IQ is acceptable as long as I get the shot.
This was at about 40-50 feet out and shot through a window in my office. Without the range I would have been unable to get much of a shot. This is also about a 50% crop of the original.

1/160 F6.7 ISO 1000 @ 500mm Bigma 50-500


Regards!

[normhead]

What I need most often is range...the more the better. The Bigma gives me a nice range and even more would be appreciated. Some loss of IQ is acceptable as long as I get the shot.
This was at about 40-50 feet out and shot through a window in my office. Without the range I would have been unable to get much of a shot. This is also about a 50% crop of the original.

1/160 F6.7 ISO 1000 @ 500mm Bigma 50-500


Regards!

SO to fill your frame you'd need about 1000mm, or just get a Q to attach to your BIgma..

[Rupert]

SO to fill your frame you'd need about 1000mm, or just get a Q to attach to your BIgma..

I've actually considered that Norm. The IQ might not be spectacular but probably good enough for me. Just not sure I would use it enough to warrant the purchase, but it is an option.

Regards!